a study on need achievement of high and low achievers

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.4, No.4, 2013

225

A Study on Need Achievement of High and Low Achievers

Samia Jabeen1 Mahmood Ahmad Khan

2

1. Assistant professor, J&K Institute of Management, Public Administration & Rural Development.

2. Professor, Department of Education, University of Kashmir. Hazratbal, Srinagar-190006.

[email protected] (Corresponding Author).

Abstract

The study was undertaken to study the Need achievement of High and Low achievers of 9th

grade students. The

sample for the study was (300 high achievers and 300 hundred low achievers) selected randomly from two

educational zones (Budgam and Soibugh) of district Budgam (J&K). For the measurement of Need achievement

Mukherjee’s Incomplete Sentence Blank Urdu adaptation (Khan, 1992) was used. The results of the study highlight

that the High achievers have high need achievement, possess ‘hope of success’, have ‘high ego-ideal’, possess

‘perseverance’, have ‘realistic attitude’ are in favour of ‘internal control of fate’, while as low achievers have low

need achievement, have fear of failure, possess low ego-ideal, are not perseverant, have unrealistic attitude and

possess a feeling of external control of fate. The study has also revealed that there is a positive and significant

relationship between need achievement and Academic achievement of high and low achiever groups.

Keywords: Need Achievement, High Achievers, Low Achievers.

1.Introduction

Research’s have been conducted on high achievers and low achievers on different variables such as study habits and

academic achievement, Kapoor, (1987); Sen, (1992); Michael, (2007); Sarwar et al (2009). Self concept and

academic achievement, Singh (1983); Adsul, (2011). Creative thinking abilities and academic achievement,

(Muhammad, et al (2012); Habibullah (2009); Mishra, (1978). Learning styles and academic achievement,

(Elizabeth, (2009); Julie (1999). Socio-economic status and academic achievement (Nair, (1987); Trivedi, (1988);

Singh, (1989); Ganguly, (1989); Davanesan, (1990); Mohanty, (1992).

Kapoor (1987) has found that high achievers have proper and planned reading habits than low achievers, Sen (1992)

in his study has revealed that study habits and achievement of High and Low achievers were significant and

positively related, Michael (2007) revealed that there exists significant difference between high and low achievers

study strategies, Sarwar et al (2009) revealed that high achievers had better study orientation, study habits and

attitude towards study than low achievers. Singh (1983) in his study has revealed that there exists a significant

difference in the self-concept of High and Low achievers which is in favour of high achievers, Adsul (2011) has

revealed in his study that there is no significant difference between high and Low achievers on self-concept namely

physical, social, emotional, moral and educational self concepts but it is found that there is significant difference in

high and low achievers on intellectual self concept. Muhammad, et al (2012) in his study on a creative thinking

abilities of High and Low achievers has revealed that there is no significant different in students creative thinking

abilities due to the level of academic achievement, Habibullah (2009) in his study has revealed that academic

achievement were related to aspects of creativity for both males and females, Mishra (1978) in his study on

comparative study of high and low achievers in Science and Arts on creativity has revealed that high achievers were

higher in both Arts and Science were having higher creativity. Elizabeth et al (2009) on learning styles of high and

low achievers has revealed that no significant difference exists in learning styles between the low achiever and high

achiever students. Julie (1999) in his study on high and low achievers classroom interaction patterns have revealed

that high achieving informants initiated more interactions than the low achievers. Nair (1987); Davanesan (1990);

Mohanty (1992) has revealed that high achievers are from high socio-economic status and do have positive effect on

their academic achievement. A few studies have been conducted on need achievement Adiba Farha (2004); Raon

(2000); Sontakey (1986); Peipelli and Guirong (2007). Adiba Farha (2004) in her study has revealed that high

achievers attributed their success and failure mostly with effort and ability, Raon (2000) revealed that low achievers

were less motivated towards studies and perceived academic learning as being less useful, Sontakey (1986) revealed

that high achievers and low achievers did not differ significantly in achievement motivation. Peipeili and Guirong

mailto:[email protected]



226

(2007) in their study have found that students with higher motivation always achieve greater success in examination.

Some studies have revealed that need achievement is a good facilitator of academic achievement and some has

revealed that there is no significant difference between academic achievement and need achievement therefore,

merits an exploration. It is with this back ground that present investigator has made humble attempt to find out need

achievement of high achievers and low achievers of rural district of Kashmir province i.e., Budgam. The present

investigator has selected the rural area children because they are almost cut off from the modern society and live a

socially backward life and also the literacy rate in district Budgam is lowest as compared to other districts of

Kashmir province i.e., 39.54%.

1.2 Objectives

1. To identify the high achievers and low achievers.

2. To study the need achievement of high achievers and low achievers.

3. To find out the relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of high achievers.

4. To find out the relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of low achievers.

1.3 Hypotheses

i) In comparison to high achievers, low achievers possess low need achievement (Composite Score).

ii) In comparison to high achievers, low achievers possess low need achievement (factor wise).

iii) There is a positive and significant relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of

high achievers.

iv) There is a positive and significant relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of

low achievers.

2. Methodology and Procedure

2.1 Sample

2.1.1 Initial Sample

All male and female subjects (N=1200) studying in class IXth

were contacted from the Govt. High and Hr. Secondary

schools of two educational zones of district Budgam. Selection of two educational zones viz. Budgam and Soibugh

was randomly done. Private schools of these two zones were not considered as sample units because of the following

reasons:-

1. Their teacher recruitment is guided by their own recruitment policy.

2. The conduct of examination is governed by their own rules and regulations.

3. The students studying in these institutions decidedly possess a high social economic status which would

have affected the criterion variable (academic achievement).

4. Students of IXth

class were selected with this understanding that they are mature enough to take their

decisions themselves.

2.1.2 Final Sample

Out of 1200 students, 600 students were screened out and 600 students were taken as final sample. On the basis of

their academic achievement in the previous class i.e., VIIIth

the sample subjects scoring 75th

percentile and above (N

= 300) were considered as high achievers and the sample subjects scoring 25th

percentile and below (N = 300) were

considered as low achievers.

2.2 Tools

For measurement of need achievement, Mukherjee’s incomplete sentence Blank Urdu adaptation (Khan, 1992) was

administered.



227

2.3 Statistical Analysis of the Data

The information obtained from the collected data was put to suitable statistical analysis in order to arrive at definite

conclusions in the light of proposed objectives. Hence, mean, S.D ‘t’ values and Pearsons ‘r’ were computed . This is

shown in table 1-4.

3. Conclusion

High Achievers have high need achievement, possess ‘hope of success’, are optimistic, identify themselves with a

successful authority and prefer intrinsic rewards when successful; While as low achievers have low need

achievement and are somewhat pessimistic and prefer external rewards when successful and do not identify

themselves with successful authority;

1. High achievers have high ‘ego-ideal’, are self-confident, competitive, maintain their self respect and have a

sense of striving to achieve a high position or status; while as low achievers possess low ego-ideal, hardly

bother to have a high position or status, are not competitive, feel less concerned towards maintenance of

self-respect;

2. High achievers possess ‘perseverance’, prefer difficult and challenging tasks, have a sense of devotion to

work, have a long term involvement with their future career and dislike idleness; while as low achievers are

not perseverant. do not prefer difficult and challenging tasks, are not committed to work, have short term

involvement with their future career;

3. High achievers have ‘realistic attitude’, take intermediate risks and plan in advance, while as low achievers

have unrealistic attitude, take either high or low risks in life and do not plan in advance for doing anything

in life,

4. High achievers are in favour of ‘internal control of fate’ and possess strong determination and deny the role

of some superior unknown force in shaping their destiny, while as low achievers possess a feeling of

external control of fate, rely more on superior unknown forces than on self effort in shaping one's destiny

and have weak determination and possess inconsistent behaviour.

4. Inferential Suggestions

1. In order to increase academic achievement of low achievers it is imperative that such students be trained in

having a high achievement motivation, realistic goal setting and achievement striving. These training

activities can be operated by their teachers through behaviour and planned intervention programmes.

2. Teachers and school authorities should carry out motivational strategies in order to involve students in

academic activities for improving their motivational level so that they will be able to improve their overall

performance.

3. It is recommended that teachers and counseling psychologists should encourage the development of a strong

achievement motivation in the students through the provision of appropriate counseling intervention

programmes. By doing so, academic performance of students could be improved barring all other teaching

learning obstacles.

4. In order to reduce the gap between high achievers and low achievers teaching learning process must be

improved in all respects which can meet the specified needs.

5. There should be close coordination between parents, teachers and principals. Parent-Teacher meetings

should be held off and on in order to find out the strategy to improve the academic achievement of low

achievers.

6. In absence of a guidance and counseling worker, the teacher should act “as go between” for the family and

the school so as to bring about desired changes in the behaviour of low achievers.

7. Analysis of this study is expected to give information about Need achievement which can affect students’

academic achievement. It is hoped that the findings can help students, teachers, school administrators,



228

parents and the Government to be used as a guide in the programmes to be organized within or outside

school to instill the high need achievement among students.

References

Adiba & Farha (2004). A study of attributions of low achievers and high achievers about the perceived causes of

their success and failure. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi.

https://www.researchgate.net/28347139.

Adsul, R. K. (2011). Self concept of high and low achieving adolescents. Indian Streams Research Journal. Vol. 1,

Issue II: pp. 118-122.

Alam, M. M. (2006). Academic achievement in relation to socio-economic status, anxiety level and achievement

motivation: A comparative study of Muslim and non-Muslim school children of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Educational

Abstracts, Vol. 6 (2), 42-43.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-

271.

Badhri N., (1991). An investigation into the causes for low achievement in government high schools in Chenglapattu

Educational District, Tamil Nadu. Ph.D., Edu. Patna Uni. Cit. In Fifth Survey of Research in Edu. 1978-92: p. 1862-

1863.

Baskaran, K. (1991). Achievement motivation, attitude towards problem-solving and achievement in mathematics of

standard X students in Devakotal educational district. Ph.D Edu., Allagappa Uni. Cit in 5th

Survey of Research in

Edu. Vol. II. p. 1863.

Collins, C.J., Hanges, P. J. and Locke, E. A. (2004). The Relationship of achievement Motivation to Entrepreneurial

Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis, Human Performance, 17: 1, 95-117.

Davanesan, Paul, P. (1990). Socio-economic status, achievement motivation and scholastic achievement of higher

sec. students in Pasumpon Thevar Thrumagan District, M.Phil, Edi, Alagappa Univ. Cit. in 5th

Survey of Research in

Edu. Vol. II p.1869.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Elizabeth Montemayor M. A. (2009). Learning styles of high & low academic achieving fresh man teacher education

students: An application of the DUNN & DUNN’S learning style Model Vol. 01 No.4.

Ellekkakumar, B. and Elankathirselvan, N. (2001). Achievement Motivation of Higher Secondary Students and their

Achievement in Physics. Journal of Educational Research and Extension, Vol. 38 (1).

Eppler, M. and Harju, B. (1997). Achievement motivation goals in relation to academic performance in traditional

and non-traditional college students. Research in Higher Education, 38(5), pp. 557-573.

Ganguly, Malabika (1989). A study of the determinants of scholastic achievement in rural and urban areas. Ph. D.

Edu. Vishva Bharati fifth Survey Edu. 1988-90 Vol. II p. 1874.

Gottfried, A.E; Fleming, J.S. and Gottfried, A.W. (1998). Role of cognitively stimulating home environment in

children’s academic Intrinsic motivation; A longitudinal study child development 69, 1448-1460.

Habibollah Naderi (2009). The relationship between aspects of creativity and Academic achievement among

students. Journal of Psychological Studies, The University of Mazandran, Iran. B-316, p. 324.

Julie Willson (1999). High and low achievers classroom interaction patterns in an upper primary classroom.

www.Aarc.Edu.An/99pap/wil99741.htm Melbourne Australia.

Kapoor, Rita (1987). A study of factors Responsible for high and low Achievement at the Junior High School level

Ph.D Edu. Avadh cit in Buch M.B. (Ed). Fourth Survey of Research in Education, pp. 829-830 New Delhi, NCERT.



229

Michael C.W. Yip (2007). Differences in Learning and Study Strategies between High and Low Achieving

University Students: A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, Vol. 27, Issue 5, 597-606.

Mishra S.P. (1978). A comparative study of high & low achievers in science commerce & arts on creativity,

intelligence & anxiety Ph.D Edn. Raf. Uni, 3rd

Survey Edu. p. 675.

Mishra, K. N. (1992). A comparative study of achievement Motivation and scholastic Achievement in relation in

Self concept. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 53(1): 139-142.

Mohanty, S. (1992). Causes of academic underachievement at the primary stage as viewed by teachers and parents as

viewed by teachers and parents of Puri Town. M.Phil., Utkal Univ. Cit. in 5th

Survey of Research in Education. Vol.

II: p. 1888.

Muhammad Nadeem Anwar, Sahibzada Shamim-ur-Rasool and Raheel Haq (2012). A Comparison of Creative

Thinking Abilities of High and Low Achievers Secondary School Students. International Interdisciplinary Journal

of Education. Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Nair, Viswanadhan, P. (1987). A comparative study of certain cognitive, affective and social variable which

discriminate between high-creative and low-creative underachievers in secondary school science. Ph.D., Edu. Univ.

of Calicut.

Peipei Li & Gvirong Pan (2007). A survey of study motivation of English Majors in Qingdao Agricultural

University. English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 1: p. 128.

Recascino F., C.M. (2003). Pilot motivation and performance: Theoretical and empirical relationships. International

Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13, 401-414.

Salami, S.O. (2004). Affective characteristics as determinants of academic performance of school going adolescents:

Implications for counseling practice. Sokoto Educational Review, 7, 145-160.

Sarwar M., Bashir M., et al. (2009). Study-orientation of high and low academic achievers at secondary level in

Pakistan. Educational Research and Review, Vol. 4(4), (pp. 204-207), April 2009.

Sen Barat, Kalpana (1992). An investigation into the personality make-up. Intelligence and study habits of high and

low achievers. Ph.D., Edu. Univ. of Calcutta. Fifth Survey of Research in Education. 1988-92, Vol. 1, p. 724,

NCERT, New Delhi.

Sharma, Premalata (1981). A study of Factors related to Academic Under Achievement of Girls of Secondary

Schools located in rural areas of Haryana, Ph.D (Edu. Mys. U; cit. in Buch, M.B. (Ed) Fourth Survey of research in

Education, Vol. 1, New Delhi; p. 851, NCERT.

Singh, A. D . (1983). A comparative study of high and low academic achievers in self-concept formation to study the

difference in the self-concept of high and low achievers. Ph. D. Education, RDVV. 4th

Survey of research in

Education, 83-88, V. I. p. 857.

Singh, N. P. (1989). Achievement and Intelligence of University Students, J. Ed: and Psychol, 28,3.

Sinha, D. (1970). Academic achievers and non achievers (An analysis of some factors associated with success and

failure in university education). Pub. By United Publishers Allahabad.

Sontakey, V.V., (1986). A comparative study of personality factors and achievement motivation of high and low

achievers in natural and biological sciences. Ph.D Edu., Cit., in Buch, M.B. (Ed.). Fourth Survey of Research in

Education. (1983 – 1988) Vol. 1, New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 858-859.

Sween (1984). Academic achievement of high school students in relation to the instructional design, intelligence,

self-concept and need achievement. Ph.D., Edu., Pan. U., cit. in, Buch, M.B. (Edu), 4th Survey of Research in Edu.,

1983-88, Vol. 1, p. 861.

Thomas G. Zenzen (2002). Achievement motivation. www2.uwstout.edu/content/ lib/thesis/2002/2002zenzent.pdf.



230

Trivedi, V. (1988). A study of relationship of parental attitude, socio-economic background and feeling the security

among the intermediate students and their academic achievement, Ph.D, Edu. Uni. Lucknow 5th

Survey, p. 1927.

Wan, R. & Rehman, A. (1998). Managing student intake at graduate level paper presented at the third Annual Asian

Academic for management conference, 16-17 July 1998 at Kualu Terengganu. Psychology. University Teknology

Malaysia institutional respository eprints.utm.my/19445/1/elixir1.

First Author: Samia Jabeen; Assistant Professor Jammu & Kashmir Institute of Management, Public Administration

and Rural Development.

Second Author: Dr. Mahmood Ahmad Khan; Professor Department of Education & Ex-Dean & Head, Faculty of

Education, University of Kashmir. Hazratbal Srinagar-190006.

Table.1. Significance of the mean difference between High Achievers (N=300) with Low Achievers (N=300) on

composite score of Need Achievement.

Factor Groups Mean Std deviation ‘t’

Total Need

Achievement

HA 50.56

29.20

6.94

6.53 38.82**

LA

**=Probability 0.01

Description of Table 1:

When high achievers and low achievers were compared on composite score of need achievement the mean difference

was found to be significant. The high achievers had a mean score of 50.56 and low achievers exhibited a mean need

achievement score of 29.20. The obtained ‘t’ value is 38.82 which is far beyond the table ‘t’ value at 0.01 level.

Therefore it can be accepted with surety that high achievers are decidedly better than low achievers on need

achievement. Common sense of a person also rationalizes once psyche that low achievers have very low desire to

excel that is why they lack behind and high achievers aspire more, strive for that, reach to their destination and as is

obvious become high achievers.



231

Table. 2. Significance of the mean difference between High Achievers (N=300) with Low Achievers (N=300) on

Need Achievement (Factor wise)

Factors Groups Mean Std. deviation ‘t’

Hope of

success (A)

HA 10.67

8.36

3.65

3.10 8.35**

LA

Ego ideal

(B)

HA 13.72

7.36

3.56

2.61 97.98**

LA

Perseverance

(C)

HA 9.59

5.30

2.98

2.57 18.89**

LA

Realistic

attitude (D)

HA 6.72

4.33

2.87

1.91 12.05**

LA

Internal

control of

fate (E)

HA 5.86

3.85

2.97

1.87 9.91**

LA

**=Probability <0.01

Description of Table.2:

The perusal of table 2 makes it obvious that high achievers and low achievers differ significantly on factor ‘A’ (Hope

of success) of need achievement. The obtained ‘t’ value is 8.35 which is far greater than table ‘t’ value at 01 level.

The mean difference favors high achievers. Indicating thereby that high achievers are high on Hope of success than

low achievers. The result support the contention that high achievers achieve because they are optimistic. Whatever

task they are assigned they complete. They identify themselves with a successful authority and follow their ideals.

Besides they prefer intrinsic rewards when successful, that gives them boosting for further action. On the other hand

low achievers achieve less because they have fear of failure. They are pessimistic about their success. It provides a

negative feedback for low achievers and they fail to realize their potentiality. They hardly identify themselves with

any successful authority that would have provided a motivating force for their success. They usually prefer external

rewards for their success. The denial of such rewards becomes a negative force against the struggle for achievement.

The results are in the expected direction that high achievers possess high hope of success while as low achievers

have fear of failure.

On factor ‘B’ (ego ideal) the table depicts that the mean of high achievers 13.72 is decidedly superior to the mean of

low achievers 7.36. The mean difference is significant beyond 0.01. The result confirm that high achievers have high

ego ideal than low achievers. High achievers possess high level of aspiration and that is why they achieve success.

They have high level of self confidence. Besides this they have a sense of striving to achieve a high position or status

in society and therefore, strive for achieving that status. Competitiveness and maintenance of self respect enables

them to look forward to success. On the other hand, low achievers lack self confidence and competiveness. They

hardly have a sense of striving to achieve high status in society therefore, they are not endowed with the

characteristics that would have served as a motivating force for achieving at least up to their inborn capability and

thus prove to be low achievers. The results of the present study shows that high achievers have high ego ideal while

as low achievers possess low ego ideal. This appeals to the logic in the sense that high ego ideal serves as a positive

feedback while low ego ideal serves as a negative feedback for success.



232

The mean of high achievers is 9.59 which is superior to mean of low achievers 5.30 on factor ‘C’ (perseverance) is

statistically significant (P < .01). The results confirm that high achievers are persistent, prefer difficult and

challenging tasks, have a sense of devotion to work, get satisfaction in completing an assigned task, have a long term

involvement with future career and dislike idleness, while the reverse is true for low achievers group. The results

signify that low achievers achieve less because they have less perseverance capacity and do not have more devotion

to work. They usually shirk work on difficult and challenging tasks. As a matter of fact low achievement is accepted.

Perseverance enables a person to achieve strides in his life. Unless a student works persistently throughout the year

he cannot get through the examination. Therefore, it is justified that high achievers have high perseverance while as

low perseverance is the characteristic feature of low achievers.

High achievers and low achievers differ significantly on factor ‘D’ (realistic attitude). The obtained ‘t’ value is 12.05

which is decidedly greater than table ‘t’ value at 0.01 level. The results reveal that high achievers have realistic

attitude. They take immediate risks in life, plan in advance and are able to achieve up to their optimum level. It is

their realistic aspiration that they are in a position to fulfill their objectives and do not get perturbed due to failure.

On the other hand low achievers have unrealistic attitude indicating there by that they take high or low risks in their

life and possess unrealistic aspirations in life. They hardly plan before hand in order to complete a particular task.

Those students who do not follow the sequential order, realistic aspiration, advanced planning so as to perform a task

become low achievers. On the other hand, the high achievers who follow the orderly scheme prove to be achievers.

The results that high achievers have realistic attitude and low achievers have unrealistic attitude also appeals to the

logic in the sense that a group of subjects is named as high achievers and another termed as low achievers.

While reviewing table 2 it is observed that there is a significant mean difference between high achievers and low

achievers on factor ‘E’ (internal control of fate) of need achievement. The obtained ‘t’ value on said factor is 9.91

which is greater than table ‘t’ value at .05 level. Therefore, the difference is statistically significant. The results

confirm that high achievers rely on their own effort for doing anything in life and deny the role of some superior

unknown force in shaping their destiny. Strong determination is their characteristic feature on the other hand low

achievers do not rely on self effort. They are in favour of some unknown superior force in shaping their fate and have

weak determination for doing different activities in life. This characteristic feature of low achievers provides itself a

justification for their low achievement being natural. A person who is not determined to do anything and does not

make use of his own efforts, can never realize the potential he/she is bestowed with. Under these circumstances

he/she has to continue with his low achievement. The high achievers will continue to be achievers as they rely on

their own effort and work with strong determination. The results are significant (P < 0.01) and we can justify by

saying that the high achievers have high internal control of fate than low achievers.

The results of table 1 and 2 are analyzed and discussed on composite score and factor wise score of need

achievement in the above cited paragraphs are in line with Sinha (1970); Sharma (1981); Sween (1984); Deci and

Ryan (1985); Sontakey (1986); Gottfried and Fleming (1998); Badhri (1991); Ames (1992); Wan Rafaei (1998);

Ellakka and Elankathirselvan (2001); Alam (2006); Peipei Li and Gvirong Pan (2007).

Sinha (1970) studied that need achievement was significantly and positively correlated with academic achievement.

Sharma (1981) has found high achievers were high and low achievers low in their performance. Sween (1984)

studied that high achievement motivated students gained significantly more than low achievement motivated

students. Deci and Ryan (1985) found a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance both in

class and on standardized tests. Sontakey, (1986) has found that high achievers were charged with a high level of

motivation to realize high goals in their lives, Gottfried and Fleming (1998) also revealed in their research study that

motivation was a potent predicator of academic achievement, Badhri (1991) has found that one of the main causes of

poor achievement was low motivation, Ames (1992) also revealed that higher the motivation higher will be the

academic achievement, Wan Rafaei (1998) also indicated in his study that those high in achievement motivation tend

to perform better academically, Ellakka and Elankathirselvan (2001) have found a positive correlations between the

achievement related motivation and achievement marks, Alam (2006) has found positive relationship between

achievement motivation and academic achievement, Peipelli and Guirong (2007) in their study have found that

students with higher motivation always achieve greater success in examination.



233

Keeping in view the results of all the studies mentioned above, it can be asserted with confidence that high achievers

differ from low achievers on need achievement. The results of the present study are in the expected direction.

Therefore, the hypothesis No. (i) and (ii).

(i) “In comparison to low achievers, high achievers possess significantly high need achievement”

(Composite Score) and

(ii) “In comparison to low achievers, high achievers possess significantly high need achievement” (Factor

wise) are accepted.

Table 3: Co efficient of correlation between Academic Achievement and Need Achievement on High Achievers

group (N=300) factor wise and composite score

Co-efficient of correlation

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Hope of success

(factor A) 0.31**

Ego ideal

(factor B) 0.20**

Perseverance

(factor C) 0.16**

Realistic Attitude

(factor D) 0.21**

Internal control of fate

(factor E) 0.21**

Need Achievement (Composite

Score) 0.51**

**- significant at .01 level.


The perusal of the table 3 reveals that co-efficient of correlation between academic achievement and need

achievement is 0.51 which is positive and highly significant at 0.1 level means that higher the need achievement,

higher will be the academic achievement (composite score).

Co-efficient of correlation between academic achievement and need achievement on high achievers group (N =

300) (factor wise).

The table 3 reveals that the co-efficient of co-relation between academic achievement and ‘hope of success’ (factor

A) of need achievement is 0.31 which is positive and significant at 0.1 level which means higher the hope of success,

higher will be the academic achievement. The co-relation between academic achievement and ‘high ego ideal’ on

(factor B) of need achievement is 0.20 which is positive and significant at 0.1 level, it means higher the academic

achievement, higher will be the ego ideal (factor B) of need achievement. The factor C of need achievement of the

table shows 0.16 co-relation between academic achievement and ‘perseverance’ which is significant and at 0.1 level.

This means higher the perseverance, higher will be the academic achievement. The table shows 0.21 co-efficient of

co-relation between academic achievement and ‘realistic attitude’ which is positive and significant at 0.1 level. This

means higher the academic achievement, higher will be the realistic attitude. On the (factor E) internal control of fate

of the need achievement, the co-efficient of co-relation between academic achievement is 0.21 which is significant

and positive at 0.1 level, it means that higher the academic achievement, higher will be the internal control of fate.

The above mentioned results have clearly indicated that higher the need achievement (composite score) higher will

be the academic achievement, higher the ‘hope of success’, higher will be the academic achievement; higher the ‘ego

ideal’ higher will be the academic achievement, higher the ‘perseverance’ higher will be the academic achievement,



234

higher the ‘realistic attitude’ higher will be the academic achievement, higher the ‘internal control of fate’ higher will

be the academic achievement.

Table 4: Co efficient of correlation between Academic achievement and Need Achievement on low achievers

group (N = 300) Factor wise and Composite Score

**-

significant at .01 level.


The perusal of the table 4 reveals that co-efficient of correlation between academic achievement and need

achievement is 0.56 which is positive and highly correlated at 0.1 level, it means that lower the academic

achievement, lower will be the need achievement. (composite score).

Co-efficient of correlation between academic achievement and need achievement on low achievers group (N =

300) (factor wise).

The table 4 reveals that the co-efficient of co-relation between academic achievement and ‘hope of success’ (factor

A) of need achievement is 0.31 which is positive and significant at 0.1 level, it means lower the hope of success,

lower will be the academic achievement. The co-relation between academic achievement and ‘high ego ideal’ is

(factor B) of need achievement is 0.19 which is positive and significant at 0.1 level, it means lower the academic

achievement, lower will be the ego ideal (factor B) of need achievement. On factor C of need achievement of the

table shows 0.42 co-relation between academic achievement and ‘perseverance’ which is highly significant and co-

related at 0.1 level, it means lower the academic achievement lower will be the perseverance. The table shows 0.33

co-efficient of co-relation between academic achievement and ‘realistic attitude’ which is positive and significant at

0.1 level, it means lower the academic achievement, lower will be the realistic attitude. On the (factor E) of the need

achievement, the co-efficient of co-relation between academic achievement and ‘internal control of fate’ is 0.28

which is significant at 0.1 level, it means that lower the academic achievement, lower will be the internal control of

fate.

The above mentioned results of co-efficient of correlation between academic achievement and need achievement

(composed score) and (factor wise score) of high and low achievers group (N = 300) for each group shows that there

is a positive and significant relationship between need achievement (composed score and factor wise) and academic

achievement, indicating there by that high achievers have high need achievement, have hope of success, high ego

ideal, are perseverant, have realistic attitude, believe in realties for dealing with any thing in life, while as low

achievers have fear of failure, have low ego ideal, are less perseverant, have unrealistic attitude and believe in

external agency for shaping their destiny.

The results of table 3 and 4 analyzed and discussed on composed score and (factor wise score) of high achievers

group (N = 300) and low achievers group (N = 300) on need achievement in the above cited paragraphs are in line

with Baskaran, (1991); Mishra (1992); Eppler and Harju; (1997); Thomas (2002); Recascino (2003); Collins, et al.

(2004) and Salami (2004).

Co efficient of correlation

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Hope of success

(factor A) .31**

Ego ideal

(factor B) .19**

Perseverance

(factor C) .42**

Realistic Attitude

(factor D) .33**

Internal control of fate

(factor E) .28**

Need achievement

(Composite Score) 0.56**



235

Baskaran, (1991) in his study has found a significant relationship between achievement motivation and achievement

in mathematics, Mishra (1992) in his study has revealed that children with high need achievement significantly

contributes to their achievement, Eppler and Harju, (1997) in their study have revealed that motivational factors

show to have an effect on students level of achievement either singly or in various combinations, Thomas (2002) in

his study has revealed that the students who hold a high desire of success, work hard to achieve, Recascino (2003)

reports that there was a robust relationship between motivation and performance, Collins, et al. (2004) in their study

have found significant relationship between academic achievement and performance, Salami (2004) in his study has

found that need achievement is a strong predictor of high academic performance.

The above mentioned results have clearly indicated that higher the need achievement, higher will be the academic

achievement and the above mentioned results have also indicated that lower the need achievement, lower will be the

academic achievement. In the light of this the hypothesis nos. iii and iv.

iii. There is a positive and significant relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of

high achievers; and

iv. There is a positive and significant relationship between academic achievement and need achievement of

low achievers are accepted.

a study on need achievement of high and low achievers

Documents